1974 (4) TMI 107 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies Labour Court jurisdiction on Industrial Disputes Act matters

The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on issues under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Transfer of undertaking and applicability of the settlement dated August 25, 1965.3. Entitlement of workmen to continue employment and computation of benefits.4. Entitlement to retrenchment compensation under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act.5. Closure of the undertaking under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issues referred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court clarified that proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) are generally in the nature of execution proceedings where the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer. This calculation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, previously adjudged or otherwise duly provided for. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal, which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determining the plaintiff's right to relief and the corresponding liability of the defendant.2. Transfer of Undertaking and Applicability of the Settlement Dated August 25, 1965:The Court examined whether the undertaking of the River Steam Navigation Company Limited had been transferred to the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and if the settlement dated August 25, 1965, was binding on the Corporation. The scheme of transfer sanctioned by the Calcutta High Court provided that the Corporation would take over as many of the staff and labour of the Company as possible, but the exact number was left to the discretion of the Corporation. The Court noted that the scheme did not compel the Corporation to employ the workmen and that the settlement was not binding on the Corporation.3. Entitlement of Workmen to Continue Employment and Computation of Benefits:The Court addressed whether the 420 employees who were parties to the settlement dated August 25, 1965, were entitled to continue in the employment of the Corporation and, if so, what amount they were entitled to. The Court held that the Labour Court could not undertake an investigation into whether the workmen had any right to a benefit and whether the Corporation was liable to satisfy the same. Such an investigation would be appropriate for determination in an Industrial Dispute on a reference under Section 10 of the Act and could not be regarded as merely 'incidental' to the computation under Section 33(C)(2).4. Entitlement to Retrenchment Compensation under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act:The Court examined whether the 92 employees mentioned in List No. II, who were not parties to the settlement, were entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that the claim of the employees for compensation under Section 25FF was directed not against the Corporation but against the Company of which they were formerly the employees. The scheme of transfer showed that the employees who were not taken over by the Corporation were to be paid by the Company all money due to them under the law.5. Closure of the Undertaking under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act:The Court addressed whether the undertaking of the Company had been closed within the contemplation of Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act and, if so, what amount of compensation the workmen mentioned in both lists were entitled to. The Court held that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this issue as it was not entertainable under Section 33(C)(2).Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the questions referred to it under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's view that the Labour Court had jurisdiction was overturned. The Court emphasized that any investigation into the alleged right of the employees to be continued in service by the Corporation and the determination of the nature of relief the workmen were entitled to should be addressed in an Industrial Dispute on a reference under Section 10 of the Act, not under Section 33(C)(2).